RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Tavlin Kaur
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
22-012133/AABS
Case Name:
Shawn Harris v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Sunish R Uppal, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Arthur Camporese, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1This request for reconsideration was filed by the applicant in this matter. It arises out of a preliminary issue decision dated July 28, 2023 (“decision”) in which the Tribunal found that the applicant was not involved in an accident.
RESULT
2The applicant's request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
3The grounds for a request for reconsideration to be allowed are contained in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017), as amended (“Rules”). A request for reconsideration will not be granted unless one or more of the criteria are met. For the purposes of this request, the applicant relies on the following grounds:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness;
b) The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made; and
c) There is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result;
4Under Rule 18.2, the threshold for reconsideration is high. The reconsideration process is not an opportunity for a party to ask the Tribunal to reweigh or reconsider evidence, nor is it an opportunity for a party to re-litigate its position where it disagrees with the decision or where it failed to clearly meet its burden at first instance.
5I find that the applicant’s submissions do not establish the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 for the following reasons.
Rule 18.2(a) and (b)
6The applicant submits that the Tribunal acted outside of its jurisdiction, violated the rules of procedural fairness and made a material error of law or fact. However, the applicant has not provided submissions or evidence that substantiate these assertions. Accordingly, I find no errors of law or fact in the Decision including any errors of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made. I also find that I did not breach procedural fairness.
Rule 18.2(d): New evidence
7The parties attended a case conference before the Tribunal on June 12, 2023. The respondent raised a preliminary issue. The Tribunal sent the Case Conference Report and Order (CCR/O) to the parties via email on June 14, 2023. The CCR/O set out the preliminary and substantive issues and the timeline for exchange and filing of documents for the preliminary issue hearing. The Tribunal can take notice of its adjudicative file and I note that the CCR/O was sent to a law clerk at the applicant’s counsel’s firm. Moreover, the respondent also provided a copy of the CCR/O to the respondent’s counsel on June 19, 2023. Thus, the Tribunal’s records show that the applicant received notice of the preliminary issue hearing and timelines for document exchange and filing.
8As set out in the CCR/O, the applicant’s submissions for the preliminary issue hearing were due 35 days after the case conference. However, the Tribunal did not receive any submissions from the applicant. The respondent filed their submissions and served them on the applicant’s counsel in accordance with the deadline set out in the CCR/O. The Tribunal issued its decision on July 28, 2023.
9The applicant submits that there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when it made its decision, could not have been obtained previously, and would likely have affected the result. It is the applicant’s position that he failed to make submissions on the preliminary issue due to inadvertence and it would be unfair to the applicant for the Tribunal to dismiss his application without his submissions.
10The respondent submits that the applicant has neither introduced any new evidence in his reconsideration submissions that was not before the Tribunal at the preliminary issue hearing, nor has he explained why any such new evidence should be admitted on reconsideration.
11I find the applicant has not submitted evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result. Rather, his submissions simply provide an explanation as to why his counsel did not file submissions for the preliminary issue hearing in accordance with the timelines set out in the CCR/O dated June 14, 2023. In fact, the applicant does not point to any evidence at all. Submissions in support of a request for reconsideration are not evidence and do not meet the test in Rule 18.2(d).
12Inadvertently missing a deadline is not grounds for reconsideration. Moreover, any issues with respect to the submission timelines and the CCR/O should have been addressed by the applicant’s counsel prior to the release of the decision, not after. As such, I find that the applicant has not met his onus to establish grounds for reconsideration.
CONCLUSION
13For the reasons noted above, the applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Tavlin Kaur
Adjudicator
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: November 23, 2023